tv [untitled] September 13, 2011 3:52pm-4:22pm PDT
>> we will continue with the consent calendar. mr. secretary, could you work your magic? >> we will give this a speech read. all things are to be acted upon by a single vote. to approve an amendment for water conservation budget. to landscape programs with the urban farmers' support and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment to extend the duration of the agreement with no change to the value of the agreement. for the selection and award earthquake safety and emergency response find and planning support services, to a joint
venture to assist with planning alternatives of the pipelines, tulsa, and related features. to authorize the professional services agreement. to approve the amendment no. 12 a grant funded agreement. water quality services for demonstration programs to complete additional water quality services associated with graf reporting requirements and other related tasks. to authorize the general manager to execute the amendment increasing the amendment with no change of the duration of the agreement. to approve the capital improvement program contract and a microwave upgrade to the lowest qualified bidder to
install four new microwave sites to provide improved communication with safety and power line protection, authorizing the general manager to submit applications and the right of way% to the california quality act. improve the modification increasing the contract with time extension of one year and 125 consecutive calendar days and authorizing final payment to the contractor, the water repair replacement program on twenty first street, and proving modification #one with actual quality of the labor, decreasing
the contract duration and authorized final construction. from waste water enterprise capital improvement, [reading streets] improved modification #for the amount and duration. decreasing the value of the contract and authorize the general manager to make final payment. waste water enterprise criminal in the department of public works and payment renovation. for a total contract amount of $2,328,898 to the lowest qualified bidder.
approve the plans and specifications for the capital improvement program funded by the department of public works eplace and provide as needed replacement work.ovide as needed in the patience to be determined within the city. the total contract amount cannot exceed -- to the lowest qualified construction and waste water enterprise. to replace small sections of amount not to exceed $354,375.
and operating budgets, waste water enterprise maintenance and repair. if any commissioner wishes to remove any of these items? we have a removal. is there a motion to adopt the remainder of the consent calendar? >> is there a second? >> any comments on the consent calendar? all those in favor? the motion carries. can we take a and k together?
>> i am willing to move them, i just have a couple of requests. a looks like -- i wanted to report back about what we think the market is. i would just like chamomile at some future time on that. and on k, i would like more than one bid on an elevator contract. i would like to know what we have to do to attract more bidders on that. >> we are having to rebuild them from scratch because they are so badly maintained. >> and the emporium keeps a
staff on et. >> i will be pleased to move them. >> second? anybody? questions or comments? all those in favor? the next item. >> approving amendment no. 2 to the full load service contracts as public utilities commission for the department of energy western power and administration, providing a portfolio manager services for treasure island and yerba buena island, extending the term past the current termination date of september 30, 2015 to some timber 30, 2020.
for a total amount not to exceed $13,890,000 subject to board a supervisor approval pursuant to charter section. >> it seems like the amount is indeterminate period the resolution talks about 906 -- i thought it would be negotiated higher or lower. >> it is an estimate. it is based on the fact that we currently receive power from western under 1 contract, our base contract which are resources that they operate, primarily hydro. we receive additional power, to
>> this is the same thing we have been talking about, they want to strike a contract for the service contract. we have experienced a good rates through the relationship, they operate facilities much like ours that are very low cost. we could certainly go out to negotiate deals on our own, separate from our relationship with western. this has been, historically, a
good approach to serving the full load needs at treasure island. we recommend preserving the option through the contract mechanism. >> this is an option if we could get cheaper power, to not spend it here? >> they are asking us to commit so they can go to the marketplace. i think they will come back to us with the actual strike price and will have an opportunity to confirm. >> to be clear, there is no commitment to buy a precise amount of power from them? and there is no termination penalty if you don't buy up to the $13 million? >> thank you.
>> any other questions? >> right now we have a base resource contact with them that goes out to 2024. it is already an active contract, so the players over to fill out the demand, meeting the demand for the customers until 2020. we have a relationship established that goes out to 2024. that is our basic resource contract, you mean what is the financial? i'd believe we have that here for what it was listed as. it is less than the amount for
our full load service, the kilowatt hour price is less. it is less than the $13 million. i don't have the available for you what the actual is. >> why are we going out to 2020? it seems like a strange idea? why are we doing it now? the response was, it is a great way to get reasonably priced power. and they're pretty much demanding that of all of their customers. that is the way power sales are going now. they want that lead required commitment to continue to serve. >> i remember a few years back entering into contracts that we have regretted it greatly. i think the term is too far out.
>> is that still negotiable? >> this is the standard contract they are offering all of their customers. i don't know if they would be open to a shorter-term if there isn't support for it here. >> our current contract, they are asking us to make a commitment by the end of some timber. an indication of a commitment. they understand that will not have board approval. if we get your consent, they understand will not have your approval in that timeframe. >> is there a way to go back to them and try to negotiate the terms or see if they are open to it? >> we could do that.
it compromises our overall ability to serve through a western approach. we already have a basic resource contract with them and that extends beyond this term. it is very cheap power. >> he will see how strongly they feel about that, having a contract with them, but not as long. >> it is unlikely. >> i suspect this is the way they do business. this is how we are interacting with everyone else. survey, why an exception for you? >> if we were cannot take, there
would not be a penalty? >> i think we can come back at the next meeting and provide more detail on that, that is my understanding in the conversation with the attorney that drafted this. it goes to your issue about what rate we are buying this power at. this is more of an option to purchase that overlay of power, and there is a describe the process by which you go to that next level of commitment when you have those specific rates so you can provide more of the underlying detail to you can understand the business risk there. >> if we can extended to the end of the meeting, we can hear it or continue it? >> of the other thing that will be helpful if you try to quantify how power rates in
general compare to other power sources available to us. one of our concerns is that we might -- typically, it is cheap. >> the federal power contract is like a 2 cents a kilowatt hour contract. the portion of our arrangement is more of a market rate contract. i believe it was $76 a megawatt hour that we were using to arrive at the $9 million number. that is the price we estimate for the extended five years for the full load of service. for the base resources, we pay about 2 cents lesor less.
we have this full although the service contract that we layer on top of that. the resources purchased on our behalf for that portion of the customer demand is estimated to cost 7.6 cents. >> if you could get some answers and more detail, we will either take it back up or continue to the next meeting, that will be great. we will take public comment and if there is no objection, i would like to take a 11 and come back to attend because i know there is a community member here that has been waiting to address that issue. >> i think this also relates back to the discussion earlier, part of the problem that i understand is that we don't have
long-term agreements at low price and this seems to be a long-term agreement at low price for we are not obligated to purchase. it seems like a good arrangement for what i understand, i am sure it is much more convoluted. if the power price to serve treasure island in sounds like is what ever, 9.6, some blended rate, i hope we are recovering at least that much and hopefully the full retail rate, we are not subsidizing treasure island any more than anyone else. they're all of these interrelated power issues now. >> we are not subsidizing them and i don't believe we are making a profit either. >> may be as we look at the rate, we can increase that to the pg&e re. >> something with a new build out.
>> we're still taking care of a navy property, basically. >> they can be a revenue stream that we bond against. i am is trying to pull these things together. >> will take a number 11 now. >> to adopt a finding for the needs of any san francisco public utilities commission of property funded by seventeenth street in san francisco authorized general manager to execute in memorandum of understanding in recreation or parks department regarding the property authorizing the board of supervisors of a jurisdictional transfer for fair market value. subject to the terms of the mlu and adopt findings for the
california environmental quality act. >> this is a feel-good island -- item. it increases the housing stock, it creates a park in an underserved neighborhood, and you protecting ratepayers interest because you're getting market value for the property. what we're asking you to do, this property is surplus to our utility needs. that is one of the findings you have to make today except for a portion that is about 16 feet by 16 feet where we have a pump control station, if you remember, numerous flooding events, we put in a pond control station. we will be retaining that portion of the property.
he will authorize the general manager to sign behalf -- the mlu. you are going to request the mayor and the board of supervisors to create a transactional jurisdictional transaction between the departments of this property. you will receive the benefit from that. and finally, you are adopting the ceqa findings. we will be responsible for cleaning up as the development goes forward. those of the actions before you today and i know there are members of the committee that want to address you and i'll be happy to address them. >> if we get a motion, we will take some comments and questions. we have a motion on the table.
>> is this going to be one of these transferred? >> we are going to be paid the $6.2 million and you'll be receiving a portion of that once the deal closes. it is not a payment plan, i admit that, but we know the funds are there and available to us and we will receive the money. >> will credit back up to $600,000? >> that is up to. we have the soil contamination problems on the site and we are responsible, creating these forced accounts and we will work with them and actually get the actual costs for contamination issues on the site. >> public comment.
thank you for your patience with this item. >> thank you so much for moving it up a little bit, i know we spent some time on community choice aggregation which is an important issue for our city. i totally understand. we are based in the mission district and we work with immigrant families. we are proud to be a group that has created parking together with neighborhood residents and the families. we organize from the bottom of, and to me, this project represents the way that urban planning should happen. the vision, the need